Afghanistan

War means always having to say you're sorry

KAY JOHNSON reports that a ceremony to commemorate the release of four Afghans held without good evidence at America's Bagram detention centre may have created more resentment than it resolved.

"The Afghan people are hearing a lot of talk," said Walir Wakil, a community leader who wore a yellow turban and a suit jacket over his traditional robes. Where, he asked, is the proof of President Barack Obama's stated policy of foreign troops working more closely with local government?...

Since U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal took over as the military alliance's commander last year, he's made it a priority to consult local representatives as part of a counterinsurgency policy to win hearts and minds away from the Taliban insurgency. But often, events held to build goodwill end up airing years' worth of pent-up grievance—such as during the prisoner release ceremony Wednesday at Camp Dubs, an Afghan army camp on Kabul's outskirts.

The ceremony was part of a new programme under which Afghans held at Bagram can be released into their communities if American forces decide they are not threatening and their local tribal elders promise to vouch for their behaviour. The problem, Ms Johnson writes, is that those released have often been held for a year or more without good evidence, and the ceremony gives them a chance to talk about how much they resent that. American forces don't seem to be authorised to apologise or to explain what, if anything, went wrong. "Never apologise, never explain" may work for high-society flirts, but it's not a good long-term strategy for an imperial power.

Still, one has to assume it's better to have some kind of release and formal recognition than to have nothing at all. And Mr McChrystal has declared a rather courageous policy of cutting down on night-time raids, which he found were the top factor antagonising Afghans against the American presence, even though some feel this might put American soldiers at risk. Another top antagonising factor, missile strikes from drones that often accidentally kill civilians, is unlikely to stop. And Gary Solis, a Georgetown University professor specialising in the law of war, writes that the drone strikes have a little-noticed legal consequence for the specialists who direct them:

Every day, CIA agents and CIA contractors arm and pilot armed unmanned drones over combat zones in Afghanistan and Pakistan, including Pakistani tribal areas, to search out and kill Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters. In terms of international armed conflict, those CIA agents are, unlike their military counterparts but like the fighters they target, unlawful combatants. No less than their insurgent targets, they are fighters without uniforms or insignia, directly participating in hostilities, employing armed force contrary to the laws and customs of war. Even if they are sitting in Langley, the CIA pilots are civilians violating the requirement of distinction, a core concept of armed conflict, as they directly participate in hostilities.

Clever. The drone pilots, Mr Solis writes, may be vulnerable to prosecution for war crimes, and under the Geneva Conventions they can be legally executed by the enemy. However, this seems like a semantic problem that could be largely solved by mandating that the CIA specialists in question be granted military ranks and ordered to wear uniforms while sitting at their computer terminals. In fact, it seems like a case where the argument that the Geneva Conventions have become "quaint" may not be far from the mark.

The likelihood of there being an invasion of Langley is unlikely, so I think the practical effect of this particular violation is relatively small.

The Air Force has until recently required its drone pilots to be actual pilots, and members of the Air Force. Other operations such as the CIA have civilians (federal and contracted) piloting their drones, but at least the Air Force method avoided the problem above.
Unfortunately it also caused a problem in that pilots are expensive to produce and in limited supply, so it took them a long time to provide any meaningful amount of staffing (and they're still understaffed compared to goals) and they have "wasted talent." Most others just trained youngins on the drones themselves and called it good - they didn't bother with the fundamentals of flight, practice in real planes, etc.

But now I believe the Air Force is following the lead of everyone else and contracting out the work (or at least letting enlisted members fly). This now helps blur that distinction.

I don't know, but I'm guessing the requirement of distinction exists so that fighters can't hide among the civilians? Like bampbs says basically. If that's the case, caring about the fact that CIA drone pilots are technically not part of the military is a bit of elevating form over substance, as the blog author and gwaihir seem to say. No one is likely able to target Langley, and I bet anyone who could target it is aiming to kill civilians anyway.

Kevin, they may have to actually be citizens of the country... but that's just a guess again, who knows the requirements for a government to validly make a person in the military. But anyway, if some government were insane enough to do what you propose, and claim terrorists as part of their military, they could pretty much say goodbye to their regime. Not sure what would happen to the enemy combatants though after that mini-war ended... I'm sure the US would still claim the right to detain them (in my view rightfully).

All of this aside, if the military can be assured that it made a mistake, then it should apologize. There's real power in acknowleding mistakes in terms of helping victims move past something. No apology floodgates or that kind of BS where everything they do people demand apologies, but every now and then when clearly warranted.

Under this logic, why couldn't some government give military ranks to the supposedly illegal combatants that the US targets? Does simply incorporating a group make them part of the military according to the law? The use of this termed always seemed to be a weakness, anyway.

"The drone pilots, Mr Solis writes, may be vulnerable to prosecution for war crimes, and under the Geneva Conventions they can be legally executed by the enemy." I was a soldier in Iraq for 2 years between 2004 to 2008 and am now 10 months into a 12 month deployment to Afghanistan. I am actualy in Bagram writing this. This quote strikes me as very intriguing. The enemy of mankind in this war is the fundamentalist islamic terrorist. This enemy will execute the uniformed warrior and inocent civilian alike with no regard for international law and in fact only recognizes sharia law. Thus, whether they have a right to execute a non-uniformed CIA agent or not has no relevancy. The enemy will do as they please either way. But according to the logic of this quote we can beggin executing the enemy as they too wear no uniform. If this is the case they why aren't we? They are certainly just as evil as anything we are putting to death in Texas where I live when not deployed. Is this actualy law or is Mr. Ortiz an America hating nut that will spout untrue facts like most left wing nuts? As to whether the Geneva Convention is "quaint." Yes it is. This is a new world and a new war that requires a new Geneva Convention which gives greater flexibility in exterminating this new enemy. Although, if the old Geneva Convention allows us to execute non-uniformed enemies then perhaps the old Articles are adequate and only the weak left leaning governments are to blame for this war not being over and the subhumans that we face not being long since burned in unmarked mass pits. Re-writing the Geneva Conventions to allow for organ harvesting before we execute them might be a nice improvement however.

War is hell. Trying to make it something else misrepresents the reality. Bombs kills civilians, a fact that most terrorists already practice and know. I am sure the Taliban has no problem taking part in night raids and killing civilians.